Why the Liberal/Conservative Split is also an urban/rural split

(I was asked to report this from a thread as an op. I will expound on this as well.)

Urbanites and rural folk *really* need to talk to each other about how guns effect their lives. Guns are not the issue, guns are a symbol of the differences between these groups. It's one of many but it stands out.

Rural folk don't understand what the urban folk fear. They don't understand living in a high density space where one stray bullet can result in a dead child. They don't understand being in a space where having a gun is more liability than its worth.

Urban folk don't realize that guns are also tools. They are taken out on ranches and farms everyday as another tool. They may be used to kill a rattlesnake or wild a rabid animal. They may have to be used to euthanize an injured animal. Children are taught firearm safety from a very young age. They are taught when and how to use them ethically, effectively and safely.

Folks who live off the land are aware that calamity may strike at any time. When I say calamity I mean calamity on a community scale, not just personal. Calamity may come slowly in the form of a drought or quickly in the form of a flood. It could come from the collapse of central authorities which all too often ignore the rural areas. It may be more personal in the form of a blizzard that snows you in or the breakdown of your truck. When the nearest grocery store is 15 miles away or more, you learn that you may have to find food by other means for extended periods.

Urban folk don't necessarily understand these factors. Some clearly have no idea where their food comes from before it reaches the grocery store. At the same time, rural folk don't understand what it's like to live in a space where you rarely see trees and grass. They don't recognize the tradeoffs of living in a dense urban area. They aren't used to being able to depend on having a grocery store or deli open at all hours a few blocks away. They don't understand the value of going to a subway for a ten minute trip across town. They don't experience all the extra time that can be built into people's lives by these amenities. They also don't recognize what's its like to depend on this infrastructure. So, when a Sandy or Katrina strikes a major urban area they are sometimes left scratching their heads and wonder "Why don't these people just do 'x'"?

Rural folk also don't feel the stress that comes from being in the city. They can't always grasp the forces that drive people to desperate acts like robbery and gang warfare.

These two sets of people rely on two different infrastructures. Each has its benefits and costs.

These discussions are being conducted in the wrong places and between the wrong people. We are talking past each other. Its not just that we have different perspectives its that we lack a common base of experience to start from.

So, when you talk about gun control in the wrong way, a rural person may fear for their sense of self-reliance. They feel like you want to bind their hands and prevent them from feeding themselves. They see a slippery slope that begins innocently but ultimately ends up hurting them. But when you talk about gun rights in the wrong way, the urban dweller sees only innocent people lying dead from weapons in all the wrong hands.

It's not just about guns. It's about a host of issues including how/when/who should help the helpless? It's about whether and how much to trust government to do the job right. It's about how much time we can dedicate to monitoring our government. Urban dwellers get cheaper food as a result of government ag subsidies. Those subsidies began as help for family farmers but have mutated into corporate welfare that has hurt family farmers. Then we add educational aid and now health care. For those who experience tells them to fear government reliance it is fair for them to ask "how far should this go?" But we never really get an answer to that question. We should have one. And we should have a rational reason behind that answer.

But as long as we are divided by our experiences and unable to understand the different experiences that produce different conclusions we will never have adequate answers to these questions.

The far left has very little traction in rural areas. The issue of hunting nearly tore the MN Green party apart due to urban/rural differences. The Democratic party is the only real left/liberal presence in rural America. It needs to do more than just offer lip service to rural concerns. It needs to offer solutions that work for both rural and urban America.

1. Nice food for thought +1

I grew up rural, worked in the city/went to school in the city and currently live rural. I regularly volunteer at a city soup kitchen through my church. It keeps my eyes open. People do need to walk in other's shoes to understand the cultural diversity we have in America.

5. You and I have very similar stories. n/t

2. Lost cause, lets focus our resources on the people who voted for Obama

We over romanticize rural America. I was just in a restaurant in a red state rural area a hour ago and they were talking BS about Obama, Obamacare and black people. All they care about is that somehow, someway, somewhere, that a black person is cheating with their EBT cards or getting medical care without taking a drug test. They don't care about the LIBOR scandal, they don't care about 1/4 billion dollar stealth fighters that suffocate the pilot, they don't care about the hypocrisy of using Obamacare at the hospital but voting Romney, they don't care about how bad their schools are, how bad their healthcare system is, they don't care if they're losing their home to foreclosure as long as black people lose theirs first.

12. Some rural people voted for Obama. But rural people voted overwhelmingly for Romney.

There was a statistic on the election showing that no major city voted for Romney except Phoenix, and that city went to Romney barely. Romney picked up all of his big vote count in rural areas. As a matter of fact, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were close only because Romney did well in the rural areas of those states. Romney beat Obama handily in the rural South and interior West.

Some people have thought about how democrats can win red states. Some say that doing well in rural parts of red states is key, I don't think that will work. Young people that could serve as a beach head in rural areas largely mostly leave those areas for large cities when they grow up, the young people that remain are typically the less educated ones. My sense is that democrats can win the South and Interior West, but cities and large towns will serve as the basis for those wins, similar to what has happened in Virginia, Florida and to a lesser extent, North Carolina. We can take Georgia, Texas and Arizona within the decade, but those wins will come from the big cities and towns in those states.

6. I was just talked to few hundred of them in the last month.

San Antonio isn't rural and Minnesota ain't a red state. Work to give Mexican-Americans and African-Americans more voting power and better jobs in your city, forget about white rural America, they'll just break your heart.

9. Not enough to help us politically, you can help them and they'll still vote for Pukes

11. Tell that to the people who voted for President Obama

In places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa. He probably would not have won these swing states had it not been for white, rural voters. Especially in the state of Ohio - where his overall margin of victory was 2%.

Plus, as a Democrat in rural Pennsylvania, I feel a little bit insulted at your characterization that we don't matter when it comes to getting Democrats elected. Some of the hardest working and most passionate Democrats live in rural areas.

14. In blue states and battle ground states but give up on the red states rural areas

Maybe it's the microeconomist in me. Our scarce resources should go to our friends that waited in long lines to vote Democratic and growing parts of the electorate like urban voters, women, Asians and Hispanics. i'm sick of kissing up to rural red state voters and them saying things like "Gore is the better candidate but I voted for Bush because of abortion" or "Your not black, not gay and work hard, why would you be a Democrat?".

23. Obviously you're not paying attention to the people you talked at.

try this instead - "Corporate Farms are destroying the Family Farmer. We need to end corporate welfare and reform our intellectual property laws to make family farming viable again. We need to remove the incentive for giant corporations to drive families off the land."

29. I apologize for offending good Democrats

In this area, I can hardly tell anyone I'm a liberal. As far talking about corporate farming, they think unions up north are destroying the local economy, that only rich people can give them jobs, the reason the economy is bad for them is black people on welfare. I could go on and on but it's been frustration for decades.

34. Of course there are dumbasses. They're everywhere.

I have a coworker who recently told me that "There is no evidence for the Big Bang." He's a software engineer. You'd think he might know a bit of science. Another time he adamantly insisted that homosexuality is a choice. But I have intelligent debates with people who call themselves conservatives or libertarians. We have a lot more in common than they realize. They lack information and perspective. So, we talk. We fill in each other's perspectives until we can understand what our *real* differences are.

And there are plenty of liberals out here. But they hear crap like what you were spewing earlier and they throw up their hands or they turn to Libertarians or Greens in an effort to get a voice. When I talk to Texans about environmentalism, I talk to both liberals and conservatives and both want to conserve and protect the environment. But the media and other places distort those conversations into something unrecognizable to one side or the other and drive us apart.

It will take time but we need to pursue these conversations and keep pursuing them. I'm winnning. Bit by bit. One by one, I'm winning.

15. Hit the nail on the head...

I've spent time in some major cities, and talked extensively with city-dwellers. I'm a rural person; work on a cattle farm, four-wheel drive, cowboy hat and boots, the works.

The issues of the urban voter are not the issues of the rural voter! As it stands right now, the Democratic Party is doing nothing to address any of my concerns as a national organization; as a state/local organization it serves me fine. But to many around here, the Democratic Party is the party of the city-dweller.

I own an 'military style semi-automatic'; it stays in my gun safe til it's time to put down a dying animal, that is the only use it serves me; (coyotes and other large predators aren't currently an issue for me). Large animal veterinarians are a dying breed, as it is we already have to buy medicines for our animals from a supplier, so calling a vet to put an animal down isn't always an option. Since it is the only firearm I own, this talk of a ban threatens to take away a tool that serves a valuable purpose to both me, and my livestock in our mutual time of need.

That just an example... For another, gas prices hit us harder. In any decent city you could find some form of reliable public transportation to get to work or the store or school. When I was going to community college, I had to drive an hour one way across two counties. The only public transit close to me serves the nearest town, and will not go beyond the town limits. In the next county over, depending on where you live, the closest grocery store is an hour's drive away. We all choose for the most part, to live this lifestyle of isolation, but it was one we were born living. I don't know anything different and I hope I never will know anything else.

I'm grateful for the stability the Federal Farm subsidies provide to the agricultural industry. With so many of my neighbors out of work now the factories and mills here have closed or moved overseas, I'm grateful that there is a social safety net. But I don't give a damn about any other issues... Gay marriage, abortion, or any other 'social justice' issues don't mean anything to me. My concern is the economy, nothing more or less. I want to keep living in a society that allows me to tend to my land and animals and live a prosperous life.

I don't mean to come across as a jerk, I really don't. Yet when people start bad mouthing us 'ignernt hill folk' who choose not to live like caged rats in Boston or Chicago, I can't help but to stand up and say something. Because nine times out of ten you forget something... Who makes your food? If you live along the coast, you might get a fair amount of food right out of the port from overseas; or local fishermen. Yet I'm not aware of any great corn fields in San Francisco, nor of any beef cattle operations on Manhattan Island. Its the rural dweller that produces the bulk of what is offered on the grocery store shelves. Without the farmer in rural America the cities and suburbs will starve.

The population centers are shifting from the rural areas to the urban areas, so you might have a greater voice when the elections come again; but as two sides of the same coin you cannot survive without us, nor we you.

20. I'm rural but very much give a damn about social issues, not just "mine"

"But I don't give a damn about any other issues... Gay marriage, abortion, or any other 'social justice' issues don't mean anything to me. My concern is the economy, nothing more or less. I want to keep living in a society that allows me to tend to my land and animals and live a prosperous life. "

What do you mean you don't give a damn? Are you saying that so long as you can have your prosperous life you don't care if there is discrimination or lack of health care?

25. Not to put words in his mouth

A friend of mine who has dedicated his life to an environmental charity he built taught me "Once upon a time I tried to do it all but I couldn't, so I chose one thing and I focused on that."

I've learned to do the same. I've decided to leave certain issues alone. I'm not qualified to argue them and I'm not going to spend energy on them. In these issues I trust the party to take a stand and I'm OK with that. In other cases I may care about issues, I may be willing to champion them in a conversation but I won't go farther than that. I focus my time, energy and money into issues where I have a strong passion and feel I can make a difference.

Abortion? I follow my wife's lead. Gay marriage? I follow the lead of my gay friends. Middle East? I give up. I'll leave that to people better informed and passionate than me. Environment? That's where I take a lead. That's why I belong to a party, because I can't do it all.

31. No sir.

I do care, that is why I have more concern for the economy than anything else.

What good will it do two homosexual men the right to get married if they can't lead a prosperous life as a married couple? A marriage certificate won't put food in their bellies, nor shelter over their head. Subsidized healthcare is a noble concept, so long as the a tax base exists to allow the government to even support it in action.

If the unemployment was slashed to around 6%, including those no longer counted as unemployed, all those people working steady jobs, buying homes and new cars, and enjoying luxuries; with the government taking its fair share of the taxes, then we would have true equality. Money does not provide happiness in and of itself, nor does it provide freedom by itself; but free trade in society, and a decent standard of living for all does bring about equality.

33. What good will it do ANYONE to get married? Why target gay people? Only until we have economic

Yes, the economy is a big issue and having decently paying work to be able to afford at least the basics would be great and is something to work towards. But to say "oh, not enough jobs so sorry, your desire to marry doesn't count" is wrong.

Whether or not they live well or in poverty, giving 2 people the right to get married IS a big deal.

35. Priorities

Perhaps it is to you miss, yet I find the economy to be of greater importance. Right now I'm not in bad shape, but a lot of people are; and those are the ones that have my concern. Those without shelter, without food, with no prospect of a future beyond begging for scraps. The rights of those have my attention right now; not those who cannot obtain a fairly symbolic scrap of paper and the few associated benefits that accompany it.

36. If there are such "few associated benefits" then why deny them? It is simple. Why deny them?

Friends who are finally able to marry in my state are ecstatic, regardless of how poor they are. Why not just deny marriage to all unless they can prove they have enough income to have shelter and food?

40. I can't...

I'll level with you miss, for the life of me I can't think of a single good reason to deny anybody the right to get married. Like I said before, I really don't care... Let two men get married, two women, a man and his cousin, whatever. I know homosexuals, I have no issues with them in the least and its no skin off my nose what they do with whomever they wish.

Yet as I have stated before, I want a healthy economy. I want that before anything else because it is an issue that directly affects us all, across all sexual orientations, economic situations, or genders.

47. Thank you, and to answer your question...

I like to see both sides of the political spectrum. I don't identify as a liberal or a conservative, I'm not even a strict Democrat; I'll vote Republican if I think the candidate will do a good job (but that has been quite some time). What lead me to DU was a thread on a very conservative gun-focused forum, that linked to a thread here. I just followed the yellow brick road, lurked for about a month and decided to chime in.

I'm not a NRA troll by any means, I just appreciate the fresh perspective after reading and posting on conservative message boards. Everybody has good and bad ideas, the key is finding the right middle ground.

49. You're welcome.

The message board I came here from was ar15.com, a thread in the general discussion area of the website. The rules there generally frown on direct hotlinks but it isn't hard to figure it out from there. I know for a fact, from threads there, that members of that site have come here to 'troll'.

Right now the gun control/rights debate is overwhelmed with emotion on both sides after the rash of mass killings, and you can't fault anybody for that. I can't say what your thoughts are on firearms, but when you're discussing what many people consider to be a fundamental right, you're going to have an intense, often discourteous debate. You're not going to separate emotions from that, whether its a person seeking a total ban on firearms, or a person seeking to keep his personal property safe from being confiscated. The murder of innocent people, in this case children, is going to bring some hard emotions for everybody but pure sociopaths.

I favor a moderate approach when it comes to firearms, I don't believe further regulation is necessary for most of the country. Like I said earlier, I consider my military-style weapon, in this case a variant of the AK-47, to be a tool in my line of work. In my life it fills the same role as a sledgehammer or arc welder... I'm not going to use it every day, or carry it with me on a regular basis, but when I need it I'm glad to have it. Yet I don't see where a man in New York City, or Miami would need regular access to such a thing. I can see a city-dweller having the need, or the right to keep a pistol or a shotgun if he so chooses.

Thats the rural/urban divide for you right there. What will work for me on my farm in the mountains, isn't what will work for a person living in an apartment in a densely populated area. Our lives are vastly different in many respects.

51. Curious what your line of work is, that you would need such a gun?

Generalities are fine, what with this being the internet and all. Or as specific as you are comfortable sharing. I am curious. I lived up in AK and had some big bear rifle, no clue now what it was, but here in WA don't have the need. My work would have a cow if I brought one in.

I am musing as to types of work, all I can come up with is military or such. Indeed there are differences between rural and city.

57. To be honest...

It was cheap. I bought it before the first big gun buying panic when Obama was elected for the first time for a little less than $150, granted it was used and the stock was rather beat up. But the round is sufficient to penetrate the skull of a steer, the ammunition was and still is relatively cheap.

32. I think the point is that what's important is different to everyone

Urban folks think we need gun control because violence is out of control. Rural folks do not see that problem at all.

That's just one example. You can apply the same thing to most issues. Not everyone in every location of the nation has the same problems. And that may be part of the reason the federal government tends to get so deadlocked.

37. Agreed.

Not everyone in every location of the nation has the same problems.

Thats basically the gist of the thread. The issues that face me in the mountains of Virginia, are not the sort of thing on the mind of the voters in Oklahoma. Likewise the issues facing voters in Austin, Texas, wouldn't even cross the mind of a person living in Detroit, Michigan. We might be one massive nation with a common bond, but in many ways we all have our own cultures. Thats the risk you take when you form a nation of several hundred million across most of a continent.

27. When? Some other time. But now isn't it.

30. Excellent OP. I have brought this up several times in threads, but not in this detail.

I have asked for tolerance on both perspectives, as I have lived in extremely rural areas but am now happy in an downtown urban area where the police and fire departments are moments away, and the majority don't want guns. Both sides can feel threatened by the other. The greatest uniter I see is people who have families that live in both areas so they understand. Urban people follow certain rules that make their lives safer. Rural have others and yes, I've used a gun to shoot rattlers and would shoot a rabid animal, which I've come across more than once. But the aggressive stance of the conservatives who constantly threaten violence is part of the problem and I sitll don't believe assault weapons are necessary anywhere. Nor that arming oneself to fight the government is the answer, either. Just my two cents.

43. Good post

I think there is more to this
"Urban folk don't realize that guns are also tools. They are taken out on ranches and farms everyday as another tool. They may be used to kill a rattlesnake or wild a rabid animal. They may have to be used to euthanize an injured animal. Children are taught firearm safety from a very young age. They are taught when and how to use them ethically, effectively and safely."

I think people in these camps are more on the same page than it might seem at first glance. Neither describes the kind of rhetoric that comes from absolutist gun advocates. Is it possible that there is also a "suburban culture" that has it's own perspective on guns. I am referring to people who use phrases like "urban youth" in a derogatory manner. I think among some there may be an anger that drives them to a different perspective on guns. Are they the terrified card carrying NRA members who have romanticized guns to a point where they believe they could have prevented any tragedy we have known if they had been there with their gun. I think there are people who see guns as something other than tools. They are the device that they can use to save the world. It's an ego maniacal perspective that I think is a result of a fear that stems from too many tall tales that feed racism and perpetuate fear. The town where I grew up had "gossip spots." Bars, country clubs, beauty salons, church, etc... Crime within the community and in the city was always a topic to be embellished and reinterpreted.

44. Living in a rural area is no excuse for being conservative.

There are plenty of rural people who are progressives, who understand the need for rational gun control laws, who think that gay rights are important, who think the everyone should have access to healthcare, etc.

What rural concerns are the Democratic party ignoring? Other than, arguably, gun control, in what areas are Republican policies better than Democratic policies for rural people?

And even on gun control, according to polls, the left/right split is even greater than urban/rural. Sure, banning all guns is a non-starter with rural people, but when we're talking about things like background checks and limits on magazine capacities, it's not really a huge imposition on the rural lifestyle.

52. K&R. I understand this very well.

My family is from rural America, but I live in a huge city.

I remember when I was very young - perhaps even two or three, sleeping upstairs at my grandmother's house on the farm. I heard a loud noise. I must have screamed or cried or something because suddenly my grandmother was there beside me. She said something like, "Oh, it's OK. Dont' cry. That's just your uncle . . . shooting a fox in the hen house."

Now I live in a city. My neighbors are wonderful. I am still a country girl at heart, so I know them all. We take care of each other. But -- some of the kids in my neighborhood are in gangs. And a few of them are violent. When we first moved into this house years ago, the woman who lived next door was a troubled, disturbed type. We got along with her, but she was constantly at odds with her tenants. She finally moved out. Only then did we learn that she was in fact not just annoying but potentially dangerous.

So, I really understand both sides of this.

We need strict gun regulations in the city. The police aren't that far away and we are best off relying on them for our security here because they are more likely to be objective in judging what is going on in a situation than are we as individuals.

In the country, you know pretty much all your neighbors. But in the city, we are lucky to know the neighbors who live within a block of us.

Having had these very different experiences, I would not want to take guns from my relatives who live in small towns and the country. Not so long ago, one of my relatives living in a small town had three deer who frequently marauded the garden in her back yard. The deer overran everything. In rural areas, herds have to be thinned.

That is why I am calling on the community that uses guns to find responsible ways to reduce the excessive gun violence and the many gun accidents. This is a problem that they need to solve.

More guns is not a solution for those of us who live in cities.

I am convinced that we don't have to completely restrict guns to protect ourselves from these violent acts, but I don't know what the answer is. This is a problem that has to be resolved with input from all sides. People living in rural areas can no more impose their lifestyle on city folk than the other way around. But, if it comes down to an either or choice, I suspect that city folk will win out. So the rural folk who love guns need to deal with the reality of city folk, because guns in the city are really frightening even to those of us who understand why people in small towns and rural areas want them.